Nèdeem Elmahjoub's blog

The Liberal Defense of Murder

Liberal crap Putting the blame on those who did not vote.  Clinton is not a friend of women; she is part and parcel of a criminal state. A state that implemented reactionary policies on wages, working conditions, commodification of women, imperialist policies towards women in the Middle East and elsewhere through killing by drones and IMF adjustment prgrammes, corporate lunder and exploitation, support of theocracies that oppress women... She is not a friend of women. Nor is Mother Theresa a friend of the poor. Those who have been staunch defenders of the status quo wanted a continuation of the very same neoliberal injustice at home and abroad. The 50% or so who did not vote are fed up with the dictatorship of the two-party system. Conversely, those who wanted the status quo, the affluent and the rich support and backed Clinton to the hilt. Paraphrasing Brecht, the liberals wish they could dissolve the people and elect another. Richard Seymour: " This is part of a genre

" When Obama states that it is “the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization,” he is articulating a liberal version of Islamophobia, according to which Islam is culpable for violence committed by Muslims, even if most Muslims are “peaceful.” Thus, following every controversy, the range of debate remains restricted to right-wing and liberal variants of Islamophobia, although with an overall steady shift to the right. Hence, just as it is correct to point out that Republican denunciations of Trump’s rhetoric wring hollow, given their strong support for the logic that underpins it, the same applies to Democratic denunciations of Republicans, and for the same reasons. While the Right views all Muslims as a problem and as a fifth column in Western nations, the liberal establishment sounds more reasonable in that it differentiates between terrorists and the majority of Muslims. But it nevertheless holds an entire group of pe

" Many of the arguments used to defend the Syrian regime’s devastating attacks on rebel-held cities are eerily similar to those used by U.S. politicians, in their public statements and in a series of bipartisan Congressional resolutions, to defend Israel's massive assaults on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. By combining segments of these statements and resolutions supporting Israel’s “right to self-defense” with certain anti-imperialists’ writings on Syria, I was able to put together the ultimate guide to defending war crimes." A Handy Guide for Defending War Crimes

Rethinking Muslim Women and the Veil Published in 2002, but ...

" This is some deeply weird liberal saviour racism. All the agency in this representation is on the side of the intervening white person , while the Muslim woman is quiet, meek and passively grateful. The intervention doesn't challenge the racist politics of the abuser. Instead you're supposed to "ignore the attacker" and *talk about the weather*. The intervening white person doesn't allow that the Muslim woman might herself have something to say about the racism being directed  at her. The whole strategy of "building the safe space" depends on her being quiet. And through these means, the racist attacker is supposed to give up and go away, fuming in "irrelevance". What if he doesn't? What if he keeps it up? What if he escalates? What if you end up having to shout at the top of your lungs about the weather because now he's screaming about sending them back?  How useless is your solidarity then? Where is your safe space? And even

It has been entertaining to see the liberals reactions to Trump . The  liberals preach capitalist democracy, but they would oppose it if people elected the wrong person. 

Liberals and Trumpism Why I'm Not a Liberal